Comments (4)

  1. pyatt7@hotmail.com' denis pyatt says:

    You've got it in one Derek! This article should be on the wall of every home in the country.

    1. Thanks for the comment Denis – appreciate the response ;-)

  2. grantd@spreydon.school.nz' David Grant says:

    I feel that somewhere along the line there needs to be a balance between the two. Planes have been transformational but so were trains. Once planes were developed they then went through a period of improvement which ultimately provides a good known consistency to travel. Planes are still in a period of improvement and Richard Branson is one ot those at the forefront. If we were constantly in periods of transformation I believe we would be living in utter confusion and chaos. Economies need consistency to operate. Those companies that develop new products need the products to be sold consistenly before changing otherwise they will not make money. I believe the same possibly applies to education systems. We obviously dont make money but we do need time to see if an improvement is actually an improvement or the transformation put in place does actually make a radical positive differerence. 

  3. Hi David — thanks for taking the time to contribute a fulsome reply. I don't have a problem with your perspective at all — and would agree strongly with the notion of seeking consistency as an outcome of improvement (along with reliability and quality). The point I was endeavouring to make in the article, however, is that while the goals of improvement are laudable (and necessary), what we need at the moment is a transformational view — in the way that planes allowed us to span the boundaries of continents in ways that trains can't and could never do because of the limitations of geography. In education we have had a long history of improvement initiatives — some of which have actually worked. But at the end of the day, even if all of them had worked, we'd still end up with an improved version of what already existed. The improvement agenda, by its nature, assumes that the current paradigm is 'fit for purpose' — it simply needs improvement. My challenge is to think about what if it is no longer 'fit for purpose'? What if the time has come to pursue an entirely different approach?  You make the statement that 'economies need consistency to operate'. While that may be true, it would likely be the view of those who have the most to gain from a consistent view of the economy, because it serves their interests for nothing to change too radically. But in the current global economy we are seeing all sorts of 'disruptive innovation' that is challenging and actually 'displacing' encumbant operators. (see the work of <a href="http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/">Clay Christensen</a> for more on this.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *